Missourians Make the Wrong Choice on Prop B

Prairie Gleanings

Despite what HSUS tells you, you cannot legislate sound business principles.

Published on: November 3, 2010

Remember that song by Paul McCartney? It goes “someone’s knocking at the door, somebody’s ringing the bell.” Well, Missouri, that someone was the Humane Society of the United States. And you just “Let Em In.”

When I turned in for the night, Proposition B was losing by about 4%. I said hallelujah when one of the news commentators said Missourians are seeing Prop B for what it is, just another layer of government intervention. At that moment, I was extraordinarily proud of my home state.

You can imagine my feelings this morning when I saw that Prop B passed with 52% of the vote. That means HSUS just realized they found a sympathetic animal rights audience in Missouri. They will be back. Except next time, they may be out to legislate how your farmers raise hogs or cattle.

For the voters who checked yes on Prop B, you’re probably wondering what was wrong with your decision. I believe a vet said it best when he noted that you can neglect 50 dogs just as easily as you can 100. Point is, you’ve just allowed the government to tell a legitimate business enterprise how they can do business.

What if the spirit of the law was unchanged, but rather than dogs, we were discussing the daycare businesses in Missouri? Thus, a group sweeps in from out of state and says, “You know, I think 50 children is enough for any daycare. Once they get past that number, they start to neglect the kids.”

But wait, that would be ludicrous. Daycare owners have the right to expand and hire additional staff. If they have sound principles and provide a safe environment, why does it matter how many children they watch each day?

Still not catching my drift? I’ll lay it out really simple for you. The best daycare my son ever went to had about 15 children. It was a home daycare, staffed by two adults. The worst daycare he went to had about 4 children, and was staffed by one adult.

Hmmmm….you mean the number of children had nothing to do with the quality of care? Wait, if that’s the case with kids, then what about dogs? Exactly.

I don’t care what HSUS tells you, you cannot legislate good business principles. Just remember folks, they will be back. I just hope you make the right choice next time around.

Registered users may comment on this blog.

Post Tags:

Comments:
Add Comment
  1. HRothe2 says:

    My main comment to one of the other people who commented is how do they even know that these animals have the capability to become depressed? There is no scientific data to support this reasoning, so it is just someone being anthropomorphic. I do believe that there should be a limit on puppy mills, but I also believe that this is just the start and HSUS had other motives behind that bill (and puppy mills was just the warm-fuzzy feeling label they gave it) and that is to limit agricultural resources and slowly begin to tear away at livestock production in Missouri. By limiting livestock production, especially when farmers and livestock companies are making every commitment possible to ensure the best welfare possible to their animals, they are limiting the amount of food that is made available to a rapidly growing economy. Come to my farm, I will show you how livestock production really is - not the commercials endorsed by "humane societies" you see on tv.

  2. J. Flint says:

    Johnny, We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I am not a vegan. Thus, I view animals quite differently than you. However, I stand by my assessment of the number cap. Whether it's a daycare, a restaurant, or Wal-Mart, I believe in a capitalist America that allows businesses to flourish. The consumer, not the government, should dictate when service/goods are lacking. Additionally, what's to stop a Missouri breeder from exceeding the cap simply by establishing separate business entities to push past the 50-dog limit? --Josh

  3. JohnnyP says:

    Josh, I'd have to disagree with you and say Missouri made the right choice in voting yes. First, you call it a government intervention. I value the life of an animal, and have always stood for government protection of them. You complain about government intervention, as if that's worse than a dog suffering. In this case, government control is a very good thing and necessary. We're talking about living beings that can feel pain here, not government control of a video game. I feel sorry for you if you believe non-human animals are commodities than humans have complete control over. Second, I understand what you're saying about the number limit, but also think it's silly. You pointed out that the best daycare your kid was in had 15 children and the worst had 4 children and claim the one with 15 was better. Again, we're talking about only 15 children here. It's still a small number. Currently, breeders have as much as 200 dogs and that's being generous. I don't care how big your staff is, there's no way to adequately supply 200 or more dogs with necessary vet treatment, nutrition, exercise, and affection. Without affection, domesticated dogs become depressed and mental problems begin occurring. Your daycare comparison would only be similar if you can find me one that has over 200 kids in one classroom. Hint: you won't. To compare 15 kids in a daycare to 200 dogs in a breeding facility is ludicrous. The 50-number limit is reasonable because it draws equal relevance to both care and profit. Third, I am completely against the act of breeding. So I am glad this bill makes it inconvenient as possible for breeders to function. There are so many shelters with thousands of dogs who need homes, that breeding is both unnecessary and downright corrupt. I am vegan and do not eat meat so I'm happy this applies to farm animals as well. I support the strong welfare of animals and believe they have the right to not suffer in the hands of humans or do anything they do not choose to do on their own. America made the right choice on B. Dogs are more important than money; I'm sorry you don't agree with that. Maybe after reading this you'll have a change of heart, or I at least made you think. I know in my heart this was the right decision and I believe it is miraculous this won at the last minute.

  4. T. Walquist says:

    Josh, I am so sick of Farm Bureau, Dairy Farmers of America, Prairie Farmer and all the other farm organizations and publications I belong to and support making a big deal out of the people and groups who they (the staff and leadership) consider to be anti-agriculture. These anti-Ag groups as they are called, are just played up to us (Family Farms members ) as a way to distract us from a far greater threat to our survival. That threat is the vertical integrated mega corps who are "Walmarting" american agriculture. In just a few years we (The American Family Farmers) will all be out of business, contract growers, or a better word "serfs" to the corporations like Cargill, Smithfield, Maschoff, Tysons, and Monsanto, just to mention a few. A mega corp dairy is trying to move into JoDavies County, Illinois to milk thousands of cows. This "corporate dictatorship" will take the milk market away from hundreds of us family dairy farms, putting us out of business. One such mega dairy corp that moved into Central Illinois has already attempted take over our market and has lowered our over order premium and our price, in extremely hard times. Yet, they keep expanding.THIS IS THE REAL AND MOST IMMEDIATE THREAT TO AMERICAN AGRICULTURE, NOT THE GROUPS YOU REFERRED TO IN YOUR PROP B ARTICLE. It would not surprise me if you are not allowed to print this comment since your dollars come from some these "corporate dictators". If we can join with the majority of Americans we can STOP these mega corps by getting legislation passed that will take away their illegal labor supply. You can count on one thing, mega corp management is not going to do the dirty work. We must oppose these huge corporations, it is our only hope. Our family farm businesses are very close to extinction unless we can see the threat and organize against the trend toward corporate mega monopolies. The Justice Department is having very little success. They are just "outgunned" by coroporate attorneys and accountants.

  5. moYes says:

    Law abiding breeders have nothing to fear, but those individuals who care nothing for the welfare of their animals will now have some accountability. SOME of these operators have absolutely filthy conditions in which the animals suffer a horrible life. As a Missourian I am glad that we have finally adopted some standards of care.